Bringing the River Back:
Working with Landowners on Willamette River Restoration
August 2012
i
Intentionally Left Blank
ii
Prepared by
The Institute for Natural Resources
Created by the Oregon Legislature through the 2001 Oregon Sustainability Act, the Institute for Natural
Resources’ mission is to provide Oregonians with ready access to current, relevant, science-based
information, methods, and tools for better understanding natural resource management challenges and
developing solutions.
The Institute for Natural Resources is an Oregon University System institute.
210 Strand Agricultural Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
http://oregonstate.edu/inr
For more information about this report please contact sue.lurie@oregonstate.edu
Acknowledgments
The Institute for Natural Resources wishes to thank the Meyer Memorial Trust for its financial
support, which made this story possible. We’d also like to thank the many people involved in the
Harkens Lake project for their time and insights which also made this report possible.
Cover Photo, Willamette River adjacent to the Harkens Lake area, courtesy of Michael Pope,
Executive Director of the Greenbelt Land Trust
INR wishes to thank the following contributors to this report: Sue Lurie (INR), Sally Duncan
(INR), and Myrica McCune (INR), River Design and Greenbelt Land Trust.
iii
Table of Contents
Figures......................................................................................................................v
Executive Summary ..............................................................................................1
Introduction .............................................................................................................3
I.
History and Current Context............................................................................4
A. Settlement and River Changes ...................................................................4
B. Restoration as a Priority .............................................................................4
C. Harkens Lake .............................................................................................6
D. Harkens Lake Project Design .....................................................................9
II.
Common Themes and Issues with Willamette Restoration Planning ...........13
A. Working with Landowners......................................................................13
Incentives ...........................................................................................15
Disincentives ......................................................................................16
B. Permitting ...............................................................................................17
C. Conservation Easement: Legal and Financial Issues .............................17
Permanent Easements .............................................................................18
Time-limited Easements ..........................................................................19
D. Interorganizational Collaboration ..........................................................21
E. Integrating Science .................................................................................23
III. Themes and Issues in the Harkens Lake Process: The Hornings’ Story........24
A. Landowners’ Expectations .......................................................................25
B. Working with the Landowners: Incentives and Disincentives ................26
C. Permitting Issues ......................................................................................29
D. Conservation Easements: Legal and Financial Issues..............................30
E. Interorganizational Collaboration.............................................................33
F. Integrating Science ...................................................................................35
G. Project Design ..........................................................................................36
IV. Recommendations..........................................................................................38
iv
Figures
Figure 1: Harkens Lake Area in foreground during high water event, 6/5/10.........7
Figure 2: Parcel Ownership .....................................................................................8
Figure 3: Project Vicinity Map ................................................................................9
Figure 4: Historic Vegetation Map ........................................................................10
Figure 5: Current Vegetation 2008: Harkens Lake Vicinity..................................10
Figure 6: Historic Flood Extents: Harkens Lake Vicinity .....................................11
Figure 7: Government Land Office Plat Map, 1850 ..............................................12
Figure 8: Willamette River Active Channels: Harkens Lake Vicinity ..................13
Appendices
Appendix A……………………………………………………………………....41
v
Executive Summary
The Willamette River has gone through extensive changes since Euro American settlement –
changes that have reduced channel connectivity, destroyed important habitat for species and
vastly undermined floodwater storage capacity. Efforts to preserve portions of the river have a
controversial legacy that has left lingering suspicions of government involvement in any activity
that includes private lands. Nonetheless, there are opportunities for willing landowners to work
with governmental and non-governmental partners to design and implement voluntary restoration
projects which can provide financial and land use benefits. The river’s floodplain can be an asset
and a resource beyond its usefulness for agricultural production.
This report is part technical guide, part story based on interviews we conducted with different
interests. We have separated out the landowners’ viewpoints and experience to make clear the
importance of understanding that critical central element in restoration planning. The Harkens
Lake area of the Willamette River near Monroe, Oregon, is a priority conservation area detailed
in the 2002 Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and
Ecological Change. The Horning families who own property in the Harkens Lake area have
teamed with several partners to design and implement a restoration project as a way to, in their
words, bring what was once a living area back to life as a way to give back to the river.
If the potential for restoration is to be realized, landowners and their partners need to be aware of
the multiple associated challenges and ways to work through them. Restoration is still new to
many landowners, and projects can become complicated fairly quickly. The concept of lead
project partners as case managers for landowners is critical. This approach will help landowners
define their needs and expectations, develop the level of trust essential to project success, and
ensure that landowners are not overwhelmed with the complexity of financing, the demands of
design and permitting, and the challenge of incorporating good science.
Landowners also need to know that there is a broad range of restoration programs and tools
available, along with associated funding. The sweep of these programs and tools can be
confusing.
Though the Harken’s Lake project has not yet required permits from regulatory agencies, many
stakeholders interviewed for this report identified permitting as one of the most perennially
vexing parts of project implementation. It typically requires cooperation among different
agencies at different levels of government, and can take from three months to three years,
requiring a great deal of patience on the part of landowners and matching perseverance on the
part of project partners.
Finally, as the Harkens Lake story illustrates, a vital concept that may help ensure successful
processes is making certain project partners and landowners discuss critical timing issues, align
process steps accordingly, and develop two-way assurances that serve as accountability measures
and benchmarks for progress.
1
Those involved with the Harkens Lake restoration project expressed clear hopes: that the project
will be a model for more restoration on the mainstem of the Willamette, that restoration will
provide good compensation to property owners so that restoration represents a practical addition
to agricultural business portfolios, and that landowners will feel good about their legacy in its
benefits to the health of the river.
The report should be of interest to landowners, agencies and others in the conservation
community, and academics. We emphasize that it is a case study of one landowner’s experience,
and the pool of associated interview participants was limited. Typical of single case studies, the
experiences and outcomes cannot be generalized. There are nonetheless many elements of the
study that represent long-standing landowner issues and concerns still shared by many, as
indicated by the landowners and by several of the people we interviewed.
2
Generational issues play out in science, and on the land, and in agencies. Managing natural
resources is the easy part; managing people is the real challenge.
--- Stan Gregory, Professor of Fisheries, Oregon State University
Introduction
The Willamette River is an indispensable resource for economic development and human
settlement, just as it is critical habitat for a variety of regional species, some of them listed as
threatened or endangered under federal law. It is also an Oregon icon. Due to the river’s
importance and history, and changing restoration and protection opportunities, there has been
renewed interest and attention to the upper Willamette based on the Meyer Memorial Trust
(MMT) and Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) Special Investments Partnership
along with the 2008 Willamette Basin Project Biological Opinion and the 2010 Upper
Willamette Conservation Recovery Plan for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead. Meyer Memorial
Trust provided funding for the Institute for Natural Resources to document restoration process on
a key area for Willamette mainstem restoration near Monroe, Oregon.
The project involved tracking progress on a specific project involving partnering with private
landowners to achieve Willamette River restoration goals. Our work included interviewing a
range of area organizations, state agencies, and university researchers, as well as some of the
landowners, at multiple stages in the process. Interviews did not include the funding entities. The
report does not cover technical aspects of restoration project design and monitoring. It focuses on
details without which restoration will remain a vision rather than becoming a reality: the
relationships and institutional issues among the project partners and landowners involved in the
Harkens Lake restoration planning process.
The report contains four sections. Section I provides a history and context for current plans
regarding the Harkens Lake area. Section II is a general discussion of issues and concerns
among those organizations and landowners involved in restoration planning and action. Section
III reports on specific issues involving the Harkens Lake project; in particular, the perspectives
of the landowners involved. Where possible, we have tried to maintain the same topic headings
between Section II and Section III. Section IV contains recommendations aimed at improving
coordination and collaborative capacity among those involved in similar efforts. The
recommendations should be of interest to a range of practitioners and other participants, all of
whom need to understand the inescapable requirement for socially acceptable and politically
proficient ways to advance natural resource restoration.
3
I.
History and Current Context
A.
Settlement and River Changes
The Willamette River holds a prominent place in Oregon’s natural and cultural history. It has
been designated an American Heritage River, 1 and its floodplain is listed in the National Natural
Landmarks registry. 2 Flowing 187 miles from source waters in the Cascades near the southern
end of the Willamette Valley, it joins the Columbia River northwest of Portland. Indigenous
populations inhabited the river environs for approximately 10,000 years before Euro American
settlement, which began in the early 1800s and accelerated with the nation’s westward expansion
following the Oregon Trail.
Beyond natural floodplain meandering and other river dynamics, the Willamette River was
significantly transformed as a result of settlement. As lands were settled, channels and banks
were altered, dams were built, and floodplain forests and associated vegetation were removed.
These human actions changed flow and temperature dynamics, floodplain connectivity and
habitat. In many instances, the river was used as a waste sink; and by the early 20th century, the
Willamette River was described as “an open sewer.” 3 Little was done for several decades,
however, with respect to reducing pollution from sediment and chemical inputs.
In the 1990s, approximately two-thirds of Oregon’s population lived in the Willamette River
Basin. Oregon’s population was estimated to be approximately 3.8 million in 2009. It is
estimated that more than that—well over four million—will live in the Willamette River Basin
alone by 2050, 4 putting significantly increased demands on an already stressed river system.
From approximately 1850 to 1995, river channels and islands decreased from a total area of
41,000 to 23,000 acres. Loss of side channels and related off- river features have subsequently
decreased important habitat and connectivity. 5 Reduction of these features also decreases the
capacity of floodplain lands to effectively absorb flood waters.
B.
Restoration as a Priority
In the 1960s, the Willamette River’s condition acquired high political visibility. A series of plans
and actions to restore and protect it came out of two major programs: The Willamette River
Greenway program and, to a much larger extent in the 1990s, the Willamette Restoration
Initiative.
Although he was not the first person to publicly introduce the idea, Governor Tom McCall made
the Willamette Greenway one of his initiatives soon after his 1966 election. McCall had already
been instrumental in bringing attention to Willamette River pollution issues. Prior to his entry
into politics, he had been a television reporter with an interest in environmental issues. He
produced the 1962 documentary Pollution in Paradise highlighting Willamette River pollution
4
that inspired effective cleanup efforts—so much so that a 1972 National Geographic article
credited him for his part in the improvements.
Several dams were constructed between the 1940s and 1960s. While they contributed to certain
types of pollution reduction through flow regulation in addition to issues Governor McCall
highlighted, they created different problems for the river by changing various floodplain
characteristics. 6
There was a great emphasis at the time in preserving open spaces along the river for a parks and
trails system consistent with a national interest in preserving waterways’ natural environments as
a part of greenbelt planning. 7 Under McCall’s direction and the support of various interests, the
Oregon Legislature established the Willamette River Greenway in 1967 as a matching grant
program for land acquisition. Legislation to establish the program, comprising multiple
proposals, was controversial. Agricultural interests protested provisions for scenic easements that
implied land use constraints, foreseeing interference with private property rights and traditional
agricultural land uses. There were also charges from the same sector that the greenway would
have specifications for eminent domain, the seizure of private property by the government for a
“public good.” Provisions prohibiting such land acquisitions were added to legislation in an
effort to quell those concerns. Along with other proposal modifications, the name of the
greenway was changed to the Willamette River Parks System. 8
The Greenway Corridor Program, proposed in 1971, complemented the existing greenway
program and restored the concept of a continuous river parkway system abandoned in the earlier
legislation. Once again, the issue of the state acquiring property touched off protests. Some
supporters, disappointed by the small amount of land purchased up to that point, wanted to
include condemnation as a tool. Condemnation was indeed threatened, though there are
conflicting accounts of whether it was actually used. The State Emergency Board intervened,
freezing acquisition funds until it was made clear that the program would not exercise
condemnation. 9 In 1973, the legislature passed a newer Willamette River Greenway Act with
express prohibitions against condemnation in all areas except for five existing river parks. In
1975, Willamette River protection became Oregon Statewide Planning Goal 15 “To protect,
conserve, enhance and maintain the natural, scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and
recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as the Willamette River Greenway”
under the jurisdiction of the newly formed Land Conservation and Development Department.
In general, the various greenway plans have been moribund since the 1970s. For riverfront
property owners, mostly agricultural producers, the condemnation threats and experiences
associated with the river corridor programs created and reinforced deep seated, lingering mistrust
that affects current proposals for river corridor land protection and restoration.
In 1998, at the recommendation of the Willamette River Basin Task Force, Governor John
Kitzhaber signed EO 98-18 establishing the Willamette Restoration Initiative (WRI). The WRI
goal was to create a long-term, coordinated, collaborative effort to improve the health of
5
Willamette River basin comprising “a dynamic balance between diverse human and ecological
needs” (EO 98-18). One of the outcomes was the basin-wide Willamette Restoration Strategy, an
integrated conservation strategy covering fish and wildlife habitat issues, water quality concerns,
flooding and overall watershed health throughout the basin. 10 The strategy was later included as
the Willamette Chapter of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, also a Kitzhaber
initiative. The Willamette Partnership later replaced the WRI to create broader support by
shifting various restoration efforts from a government program to a non-governmental entity.
More recently, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and the Meyer Memorial Trust have
established the Willamette Special Investment Partnership (SIP) to support projects designed to
restore channel complexity, floodplain connectivity and fish and wildlife habitat in high priority
“anchor habitat” areas along the river. In addition, in 2010 the Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the Bonneville Power Administration entered into the Willamette Valley Wildlife
Mitigation Settlement Agreement, which provides funds to acquire (through fee acquisition or
easements) and maintain fish and wildlife habitat, including riparian and floodplain habitat, to
mitigate for the adverse habitat impacts of Willamette Basin dams. Together, these programs
are bringing significant new resources to restoration efforts along the mainstem Willamette.
C. Harkens Lake
Areas with high potential to restore natural conditions and/or contribute to available habitat
possess valuable conservation and restoration potential. Harkens Lake, adjacent to the
Willamette River and east of Monroe, Oregon, is one such area. It has, among other features,
remnants of a mature floodplain forest, non-crop vegetative community diversity, off-channel
ponds and side-channel sloughs, gravel bars, historically high levels of biodiversity, and capacity
to absorb flood waters. Restoration can enhance all of these and other important attributes.
In January 2010, two members of the Horning family contacted the Corvallis-based Greenbelt
Land Trust about selling a 43-acre parcel adjacent to the river and Anderson County Park within
the historical Harkens Lake side-channel and offering a conservation easement on an additional
202 acres in this area. The Hornings enlisted their sister and brother-in-law, Mark and Sherie
Adams, to include their adjacent 74-acre parcel in the discussions for this conservation initiative.
In winter 2012 another landowner, Bill Pitcher, agreed to discuss the inclusion of his adjacent 52
acre parcel in the effort. Concurrently, the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) was
engaged with an adjacent landowner on a Wetland Reserve Program project for 113 acres. The
area also contains about 119 acres of public land (Department of State Lands, Oregon Parks and
Recreation and Benton County).
Project partners joining the landowners included Benton County, Oregon Department of State
Lands, Bonneville Power Administration, the Institute for Natural Resources at Oregon State
University, Meyer Memorial Trust, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. The restoration and
reconnection of this priority floodplain area—a mix of private and public ownership parcels—is
a shared goal among land management entities and researchers. The area has remnant floodplain
forest and both species and habitat complexity. The outcome of this collaboration will be a
6
conservation area of over 500 acres in a critical floodplain location of the upper Willamette
River. Significant portions of the area are annually inundated during high flow events.
Conservation objectives for the area include restoration of hardwood floodplain forests and
reconnecting floodplain areas, which will create additional water storage capacity and increase
the potential for refugia for juvenile spring Chinook.
The 2002 Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas includes Harkens Lake as an example (p.147)
of how restoration along a particular segment of the river might influence flooding effects, based
on the December 1996 basin flood magnitude. It compares the area’s potential flooding effects
based on breaching an existing revetment and allowing the river to utilize a remnant side
channel. Figure 1 shows the segment in its current form, bounded by a remnant side channel that
was originally the mainstem of the Willamette. Historically the area was a key connector
between two very complex and diverse floodplains north of Harrisburg. With anthropogenic
changes to the river, these complex floodplains have been altered and simplified and currently
the Harkens Lake area is one of the most complex floodplains between Harrisburg and Corvallis.
In addition to the Willamette River Planning Atlas, the area has been identified in The Nature
Conservancy’s Willamette Synthesis Map, and the Oregon Conservation Strategy, as a priority or
focal area for conservation investments.
Figure 1: Harkens Lake area in foreground during high water event, June 5, 2010.
Source: Greenbelt Land Trust
7
Figure 2: Parcel Ownership
Source: Greenbelt Land Trust
Benton County owns Anderson Park, a parcel comprising approximately 26 acres, which
currently has no facilities but has limited land and water access. The state owns a parcel at the
opposite end of the forested area. The county’s goals are to manage the area for light
recreational use, outdoor education and conservation of natural values. The Benton County
Health Department was a successful grant applicant for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s
Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities (HKHC) 11 focusing on south Benton County, and the
Benton County Natural Areas and Park Department envisions including the Anderson Park area
in HKHC program plans. Eventual design and implementation depends on the language and
particulars of the conservation easements as well as the decisions of the broader partnership. As
of the date of this report, there had been recent, onsite discussions among the partners and the
8
landowners including an overall vision for joint management of the county and state parcels and
public access management.
D.
Harkens Lake Project Design
River Design Group, Inc. (RDG) was retained by the Greenbelt Land Trust (GLT) to initiate
restoration planning for the area. Design will be based on a joint planning effort of landowners,
stakeholders, and sound restoration science. The Corvallis RDG office will provide hydraulic
modeling and detailed terrain modeling while integrating biological criteria to help target a
sustainable restoration design. The firm’s restoration design philosophy seeks to minimize the
burden on landowners for long-term maintenance while restoring natural river processes for
aquatic and wildlife habitats.
The management agreement for the area comprises goals of restoring more effective floodplain
functions and re-establishing native vegetation communities to benefit aquatic and terrestrial
species. A more detailed explanation of the design process is contained in a December 2011
memo, Harkens Lake Restoration Planning Summary, Appendix A.
Examples of maps to be utilized for design include, but are not limited, to the following:
Figure 3: Project Vicinity Map
Source: River Design Group 2011
9
Figure 4: Historic Vegetation Map
Figure 5: Current Vegetation 2008: Harkens Lake Vicinity
10
Figure 6: Historic Flood Extents: Harkens Lake Vicinity
11
Figure 7: Government Land Office Plat Map, 1850
12
Figure 8: Willamette River Active Channels: Harkens Lake Vicinity
II.
Common Themes and Issues in Willamette Restoration Planning
A.
Working with Landowners
The mainstem of the Willamette River presents some unusual challenges based on the history of
controversy surrounding the various state-level conservation efforts; in particular, its two
greenway initiatives. Especially because of the issue of eminent domain, there is long-standing
distrust regarding government and concomitant restoration programs.
Various people who have worked on restoration projects have noted that building trust is a
critical and long-term process. Careful listening to determine landowners’ needs is an essential
13
first step. Listening may reveal that landowners are not certain of what they want, or of the value
of what is being proposed. It therefore becomes important to first determine mutual needs in
order to discuss reasonable expectations for project outcomes.
It is important to ask rather than tell landowners about land history and characteristics when
discussing restoration opportunities. Landowners tend to look upon academics as domineering
and arrogant without any practical knowledge; they share concerns that academics have a habit
of talking about land and water actions without acknowledging landowners’ detailed,
experiential, and historical familiarity with their lands and their legitimate concerns. Such an
approach creates the perception that those who do not understand landowners’ needs and realities
are trying to impose their values on landowners’ properties, practices, and lives, with little or no
concern for the implications of such actions.
In many cases, landowners may be unfamiliar with the objectives of restoration-oriented
organizations. It is therefore important to spend time “introducing” organizations and their
various missions and capabilities. Although landowners may be well acquainted with a variety of
government programs, they are also likely to have an inherent distrust of government and
perhaps, by association, organizations that work with government agencies on restoration issues.
Assuming trust exists, those partnering with landowners for restoration need to communicate
regularly to maintain what is likely to be a perpetually fragile relationship. It is also important to
maintain landowner contact in order to clarify circumstances and either verify or dispel rumors
which may spread through the agricultural community regarding government actions.
Landowners who have successfully implemented restoration projects can provide the best
outreach for other landowners. Information that comes from peer discussions among landowners
is likely to be perceived as more trustworthy than discussions with “outsiders.” For instance, in
the Harkens Lake area, allowing the Hornings to judge when the timing was right to talk with
neighbors has led to other property owners’ expressing interest in similar projects. Although
there is no way to determine if other outreach approaches would have yielded the same results,
past issues with government and some NGOs make it more likely that endorsements and
information coming from neighbors with direct experience will be better received.
Along with social issues, various incentives and disincentives affect restoration options.
Understanding the social context and how to approach the process wisely when prospects
materialize can make the difference between opportunities lost and realized.
14
Incentives
Landowners have a variety of reasons for wanting to engage in restoration projects. Often they
are driven by a strong attachment to their land and a desire to see it protected and improved for
the long-term. They also may be willing to investigate restoration as a land use alternative based
on tax and income considerations, events such as divorce or a death in the family, or a decision
to retire—in whole or in part—from whatever business the property supports.
Although for cultural and economic reasons agricultural producers have historically balked at the
concept of taking land out of production, marginally productive floodplain lands may present
new revenue opportunities. In addition to the ever-present risk of losing topsoil and crops to
flooding, turning a profit on production associated from marginal lands—which used to be
comparatively easy—is increasingly difficult. Prices have fallen for a lot of Willamette Valley
crops, with grass seed as a prime example during the recent global financial crisis. Processing
facilities for row crops are no longer readily available. Furthermore, banks that have dependably
been providing loans to landowners for multiple generations have suddenly tightened lending
requirements. Loans are therefore less reliable than they once were. Easement payments may be
attractive alternatives to the uncertainty of markets as well as river and weather issues.
Although there appears to be an overall lack of experience regarding partnering for restoration
among agricultural landowners, one interviewee noted the increase in entities involved in
watershed restoration has continually expanded over the past several years, creating more
potential exposure to restoration information and opportunities. Because of the expanded field of
restoration entities, there is “something for everyone at nearly all levels, from plantings for
butterflies to major structural projects.” This provides for different levels of experimentation and
involvement. That, in turn, affords more chances for success stories that will likely be shared.
Landowners who have observed others become involved with positive outcomes may
subsequently envision possibilities for their lands.
One interviewee suggested that paying landowners equivalent returns to tend restorationassociated vegetation rather than crops can make the prospect economically attractive.
Reframing restoration as producing a different sort of crop may also reduce reluctance to take
land out of traditional production practices as a result of cultural values. This suggestion comes
with a strong caution, however, offered by an agency representative:
If asked to plant trees to reduce flooding and protect and enhance water purity,
farmers still see this as government imposing its values on their land where
they’re dedicated to farming. There needs to be a shift in how landowners view
farming, and that’s a long-term process.
15
Disincentives
Many landowners have no history of being partners on restoration projects. They therefore have
no one in a trusted position such as a neighbor or other member of their cultural group to turn to
for advice, support or general knowledge. Early adopters—pioneers within an identified
group—are likely to have worked with some of the entities; however, it is important for any
organization’s representative to make it clear to landowners what programs and services the
organization offers.
The complexity of planning and implementing a project can be overwhelming. The critical role
of a “case manager” and/or broker is a recurring theme. Agricultural producers face substantial
time demands most of the year—time that does not allow for negotiating complicated financial
and other project-associated requirements.
If landowners are going to engage in restoration activities, there needs to be agreement among
landowners and those organizations that want them to undertake restoration activities that their
efforts will be supported. According to one landowner, in one instance several years ago, a
group of farmers was willing to lead a coordinated restoration process, but interest within various
entities in state government, and accompanying funding, did not materialize. As a result of that
and similar experiences with what is often a complicated permitting process, landowners tend to
be disinterested in proposals for alternative land uses.
While easements are a good way to provide income, landowners may perceive that easements
are risky for multiple reasons. First, they represent a loss of control over decision-making
regarding one’s property. Another concern is the financial commitment required for restoration.
Another interviewee observed that farming families cannot afford to get too financially extended
because of the unpredictable nature of the agricultural commodities market: landowners
“essentially mortgage their business lives yearly.” Contracts are set for the current year’s output,
but payouts don’t occur until a year later. The weather or other natural events—including
flooding—can significantly affect yields. There have also been recent reports of agricultural
products distributors not honoring their contracts.
A critical issue that became a potential deal-breaker in the Harkens Lake process was the timing
for easement purchase and conveyance. If the process is not well planned and scheduled, it can
result in tax planning issues for landowners. Raising awareness of mutual timing requirements
and developing critical-path planning strategies and two-way assurances between landowners
and project partners may help reduce project uncertainties and bottlenecks.
Managing river behavior is inherently risky, as landowners know all too well. Altering existing
conditions at any point in time inevitably changes land-river relationships; landowners therefore
generally regard changes in river management structures with a good deal of skepticism and
unease. Different interview participants spoke about landowners’ concerns regarding flooding
and the high awareness that the river is unpredictable and cannot, ultimately, be controlled. High
16
water is a manageable condition; flooding, however, is something else altogether. Rightly or
wrongly, the sense among landowners along the river that restoration projects are likely to
increase flooding potential is a serious disincentive.
B.
Permitting
Permitting issues tend to be one of the most significant project constraints. At best permitting can
be time consuming; at worst, the permit process constitutes an overwhelming gauntlet of agency
coordination and approvals. It is not a simple, linear process. In general, the types of permits
required and the agencies involved at the local, state and federal level may be affected by a
number of variables. These include, but are not limited to, funding sources, the degree and
amount of landscape removal and/or fill involved in the project area, whether landscape
manipulation includes surface or subsurface disturbance, whether the project includes areas with
endangered species, and whether the project area is subject to agricultural or other regulatory
exemptions. The list of agency involvement and permit approvals therefore needs to be
developed on a case-specific basis. An overview of the range of permit requirements for waterrelated restoration is available at
http://oregonstatelands.us/DSL/PERMITS/docs/WRPPIT_guide_2008_lms.doc.
Agencies tend not to think in collaborative terms, even though joint agreements and multi-party
project design and implementation are no longer novel concepts. Depending on the level of
project complexity, multi-permit approval can take from months to years. Permitting can be
further complicated by the fact that it is not unusual for agency personnel to transfer, taking with
them institutional memory of the context for particular agreements. New staff, lacking this
contextual understanding, may balk at what have been common understandings, stalling or
unraveling progress. Different interviewees noted that based on such experiences, many
landowners feel that any process involving government takes too long. One participant also
explained that when the process stalls or falls apart, landowners may think it’s the partner
organization and not some other entity that has caused the problem. This further erodes
credibility and, with it, trust.
C.
Conservation Easements: Legal and Financial Issues
A conservation easement is a legally binding restriction on a piece of property that limits its uses
to accomplish goals such as preventing development or achieving restoration outcomes such as
improved fish and wildlife habitat. The easement remains in place either for a number of years or
in perpetuity regardless of whether the land is sold or passed on to heirs.
Conservation easements can provide financial incentives to engage in restoration. There are,
however, various financial considerations landowners need to take into account, discussed
below. Conservation easements can be voluntary donations, agreements for time-limited
restrictions, or fee simple sales. The easement holder, typically a government agency or a nonprofit organization—most often a land trust—retains the right to enforce the easement
17
restrictions and is responsible for maintaining the property as specified in the terms of the
easement.
Permanent Easements
There are many reasons property owners grant or sell conservation easements. They may want
to ensure that their property retains its traditional use as part of the family’s heritage.
Alternatively, or additionally, the owners may want to protect some special feature such as
important wildlife, plant fish habitat.
Easements are unique to each property and are written to reflect landowners’ needs. They can be
written to allow property owners to continue current land uses such as agricultural production,
forestry, ranching, recreational use and residential occupancy. They can cover only a portion of
the property and need not include public access.
Land under a conservation easement may have a lower monetary value than land that does not
contain any development limitations, although this could change with social acceptability of
conservation actions. These limitations may have implications for land sales or financing.
Depending on the terms of the easement, however, there may also be tax advantages for the
property owner.
While easements are a good way to provide income, they also involve disincentives and risks.
One such risk is loss of productive land. Loans are based on acreage in production. When
considering easements, landowners and their organizational partners need to determine the
financing implications of taking land out of production. Permanent easements as part of a
restoration plan also need to include long-term funding assurances. As a project partner stated:
It’s a risk for landowners just to take land out of production without the surety of
funding. Selling an easement is not the same as fallowing those acres, which the
landowner can decide to farm again in the future. There’s no turning back. They
need to know that alternative revenues will continue to be available as part of the
restoration plan.
On the benefit side of the equation, if reasonable payment can be assured from commitment of
unproductive lands, property owners will have additional monies to invest in their more
productive lands. Some newer practices, such as precision farming that requires fine resolution
soil mapping, are very expensive. Appropriate, assured compensation can offset some of those
expenses and thereby help with overall economic viability. It is extremely important for project
partners to ensure that agricultural producers at the very least break even on any agreements they
enter into for restoration activities.
Entities holding easement titles also acquire risks. They must maintain the property in the
condition that meets the easement and conservation objectives. If they fail to do so, they could be
18
held liable by the easement funder and might have to replace the property or reimburse the
funder as a result of performance failure. Different funders have different compliance
requirements, some of which would be regarded as overly burdensome by property owners and
easement holders. In one example, landowners and/or easement holders could be held liable for
paying back the cost of an easement and potentially up to five times the original cost of the
easement for failure to achieve desired conditions at a specified future date.
Even assuming the property will be maintained properly, there are a lot of front-end financial and
staff time costs for the easement holder. They include, among other things, performing due
diligence, putting together the funding, arranging appraisals and land audits and paying
associated legal fees. In addition, for many projects, there is a need to find matching funds and
comply with any restrictions. For Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board matching funds, for
instance, there are limitations on the types of things for which match funding can be used. There
may also be a need to find funding through donations in order to finance an agreement. An
organization’s staff time commitment can be considerable before it becomes sufficiently clear
that the easement is truly a possibility; so there is the risk of substantial unproductive costs in
pursuing an easement agreement.
Despite the risks involved, a conservation easement can nonetheless be a good legal and
financial tool that provides for property restoration and protection while benefiting landowners.
Time-limited Easements
A number of government programs provide funding or cost sharing options to property owners
for voluntary enrollment in programs aimed at protection, restoration and enhancement of
agricultural lands for various conservation objectives.
The Natural Resource Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
provides technical and financial assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to implement costeffective, environmentally beneficial practices for soil, water and other natural resources in
compliance with Federal, State, and tribal environmental laws. The program provides cost
sharing and annual rental payments on multi-year contracts that involve implementing
environmentally beneficial land use practices. NRCS also offers the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP), a voluntary land retirement program under CRP for qualifying
acreage. An optional program under CRP, CREP contracts, which provide annual land rental
payments, require multi-year commitments to keep lands out of agricultural production.
Contracts may also include incentives for implementing specific environmentally beneficial
practices on retired lands. CRP and CREP are non-permanent easements that do not involve title
transfer but do restrict the types of land uses.
The NRCS’s Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) offers options regarding wetlands restoration
projects to provide benefits for migratory birds and other wetland-dependent wildlife and plant
species. The program also works to enhance a number of water related land functions such as
19
restoring active floodplains along creeks and rivers, enhancing flood control, and improving
water quality through vegetation restoration on appropriate lands.
Oregon’s WRP priorities link with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW)
Conservation Strategy for Oregon. The WRP provides three enrollment options which include
permanent and limited term easements. In all cases, property owners retain land ownership while
agreeing to restrict traditional uses as necessary only on those portions under easement in order
to manage them as wetlands consistent with program requirements.
Agricultural producers are more likely to be familiar with NRCS and similar programs, which
amount to temporary easements, than they are with permanent easements. Permanent easements,
as discussed above, carry additional risks and rewards and are currently used less often than state
and federal programs. An agency representative expressed the opinion that the best approach to
restoration may be to increase the overall number of easements. After a few landowners have
them, others might be more inclined to follow the example. In order for this to occur, there need
to be a number of factors in place: money available to cover purchasing the easements along with
sufficient monies to cover a permanent monitoring program; a purchase price high enough to
ensure that the landowner is fairly compensated for giving up alternative land uses; trust between
landowners and those involved in setting up and purchasing the easements; and broader
acceptance by landowners that such easements are good alternatives to traditional land uses. The
same agency person suggested that, to accelerate the number of landowners amenable to
easements:
Farmers should be in charge of the change process through a sort of farmer-driven
land trust. It will still take strong, reliable partnerships with people who ‘know the
ropes’ and can guide the entity through some perennially complicated processes.
There has been an attempt by agricultural producers to create interest in such a trust in the past,
but at the time there did not appear to be interest in Salem in supporting the idea. This suggests
keeping in mind that timing, as well as “small wins” through working with receptive landowners,
can affect the success of innovative approaches to restoration. As a project partner reflected:
It will help the paradigm shift by working with people like the Hornings and
being highly cooperative, being successful with them on their terms and letting
them tell their success story.
D.
Interorganizational Collaboration
Restoration projects typically involve manipulating existing landscape and, with respect to rivers
in the Pacific Northwest, also likely involve threatened and endangered species. Such projects
therefore require the cooperation and coordination of multiple regulatory and administrative
agencies at different levels of government for approval of the necessary Clean Water Act,
Endangered Species Act and other state and local permits. Agency authority for various permits
20
is highly fragmented. In addition, due to steadily shrinking budgets over the past decades,
agencies have fewer human resources to attend to complicated permitting processes.
Coordination and cooperation may take additional up-front resource commitments, but doing so
can add substantial efficiency to planning, design and implementation activities.
Regarding the coordination required and volume of paperwork involved, an interviewee stated
that there is, “no way a lay person could get through it.” Many non-profit and non-regulatory
entities therefore play a critical role as an intermediary between landowners and agency partners,
and it is essential to develop individual relationships within the relevant agencies. This can
significantly help the permitting process and interactions with landowners. An agency
representative provided the following caution as a starting point for people working between
agencies and landowners:
Don’t overpromise in terms of what can happen and in what time frame – be
realistic. Even if you’re willing to put in the effort to keep a process moving, it’s
highly dependent on a lot of other people in your own and other agencies; there
are many layers to an approval process.
The permitting and approval process can take months and sometimes years. Over time, personnel
in agencies periodically change jobs. As a result, institutional memory for the context of
agreements can disappear. Relationships and understanding need to be re-created, adding to time
and other resource commitments. Landowners may lose patience and either drop out of projects
and/or decide not to engage in future dealings with the government.
One agency interviewee noted that the better processes and projects are those with lots of
coordinated planning input up front and which have a lead agency. This reduces the tendency of
the involved agencies to carry out project design from individual organizational perspectives,
which can lead to confusing or incompatible project designs and expectations.
There has been some progress on joint review and decision making such as joint biological
opinion review and document preparation as required by the Endangered Species Act. A
researcher pointed out, however:
Up to now, this has not been the norm. There needs to be a coordinated
assessment program that could be funded. Until that happens, there’s no reason
for up-front coordination of funding and, therefore, no reason to get permitting in
sync.
Oftentimes, permitting can be a significant problem for organizations lacking sufficient
familiarity and experience concerning regulatory requirements. The same person who identified
the characteristics of better processes and projects suggested that a solution would be funding for
21
non-regulatory agencies to hire someone familiar with permitting requirements and language.
Someone who “speaks regulatory language” and understands what’s required would likely be
able to move permits through the process more quickly as non-regulatory agencies are not likely
to have this expertise.
In addition to collaboration to meet legal requirements such as Endangered Species Act
provisions, involved agencies need to come to agreement on what restoration means, and how
partners will gauge restoration success. To accomplish this, there needs to be joint agreement on
monitoring criteria and performance measures to determine whether project actions are
genuinely leading to restoration.
Reflecting on the role of landowners in various project activities, an interviewee explained that
many of them quickly become overwhelmed by the number of agency partners required while
others “like the crowd.” Additionally, some landowners want minimal engagement with actual
activities while others get quite excited about restoration and want to be in the middle of
activities, helping out, making observations and learning more about restoration in general and
how it is affecting their property. It is therefore important to gauge landowner tolerance for
working with all partners and create an appropriate level of involvement.
It can be a challenge, real or perceived, to provide flexibility to accommodate landowners’
needs. Agencies generally have narrowly-defined objectives and priorities. An interview
respondent observed that if landowners are not comfortable with, and therefore agreeable to,
agencies’ project plans, agency personnel often do not feel they have the latitude to make the
types of adjustments that might make the project acceptable to all parties. Sometimes the
agencies are legally constrained from making modifications. In other cases, however,
inflexibility may be the result of institutional habit, and agency staff may have more flexibility
than they believe exists.
Some agencies tend to have historical interagency relationships that run from mildly competitive
to antagonistic. As a result, building good relationships and developing joint objectives among
the public-sector partners can be as important as building relationships between landowners and
agencies. Assessing collaborative capacity and acting accordingly is therefore important.
The foregoing discussion indicates that there will inevitably be a network of entities interacting
with landowners and with one another. Because of the complexity of many restoration projects,
there are a lot of data, permitting, timing, and relationship issues, among other matters, to attend
to from concept to project monitoring. There needs to be close attention to timing between
agencies and landowners in addition to timing among agency partners. Agencies may not be
aware that landowners also have critical deadlines with respect to tax and crop planning where
easements may be involved. Putting projects or finances on hold, even for short periods, may
make it prohibitively expensive for landowners to go forward, resulting in expensive lost
opportunities for all parties.
22
In addition to fragmentation of authority, the Harkens Lake project illustrates the fragmentation
of information about the particular stretch of the Willamette involved in this project. There is
sometimes a disconnect among agencies working on specific projects at various points along the
mainstem. According to one person who spoke about the issue, various organizations knew what
was going on regarding their side of the river, but not the other. Based on interviews and
conversations, it appears resource constraints affecting funding and staff likely influenced this
confusion. Most staff seemed to be perpetually struggling to stay on top of work requirements.
This should not be seen as a criticism; rather, it points to the need for additional help to build
collaborative capacity.
In many instances for projects within specified watersheds, watershed councils act as “case
managers” but there are few similar organizations for the mainstem of the Willamette. Focusing
on the network of project partners as a structural issue may help identify ways to increase
strategic efficiency and effectiveness.
F.
Integrating Science
Science is a pivotal and evolving aspect of restoration projects. One scientist noted that, in
contrast to an earlier emphasis on single projects with focused outcomes, the more successful
restoration efforts are those which are adaptive and where those people designing future
scenarios are thinking about a general trajectory rather than a fixed outcome. An example would
be designing for overall ecosystem function rather than focusing solely on trying to replicate
historic conditions on a particular plot since, “The past is just a context.” In one example, project
designers left agricultural production in as part of the plan since restoration wasn’t feasible on
that portion of the property.
No viable restoration is likely to take place without a thorough scientific understanding of
baseline conditions, historical patterns and changes, and what would constitute a healthy
ecosystem. Various aspects of the Willamette River have now been studied for decades: maps
have been digitized, and general knowledge is both broad and deep. At the same time, however,
issues—including incorporating science—are as much social as they are a function of scientific
expertise. A researcher observed:
There’s always a need for science, but it’s not the limiting factor. We need social
models of how to create a common goal. We need to know how to have people
from different backgrounds, ownerships, entities and communities work together
to accomplish those common goals in ways that people feel good about the
process. That way, the process builds its own momentum. It doesn’t need a
charismatic leader because the broader community wants to be part of it.
23
Regarding models, the same researcher also talked about a typical misunderstanding of scientific
models as an aspect of project outcome assurance:
Everyone thinks that models tell you about the future. They tell you about
conditions at a certain point. If the river changes at all in the future, the model
changes too. They’re definitely useful, but they’re a snapshot of a moment in
time.
A wide range of variables can change river behavior, yet typically only certain ones, under
certain conditions, are components of modeling. If the river dynamics change, the model will
need to change as well. With the Harkens Lake project, property owners in the area wanted
assurances that there would not be a risk to neighboring properties from alterations to existing
land uses and structures. Given that models are snapshots–and limited ones at that–no absolute
guarantee is possible. Thus, it is critical to establish that uncertainty is an element of landscape
change for restoration, just as it is with respect to the larger issue of living and farming in a
floodplain. Nonetheless, attention to providing the best available level of realistic assurances is
an important negotiating step.
Science is just as significant on the back end of projects as it is on the front end. Monitoring—
tracking and evaluating management outcomes—is essential for both those who have contributed
money to restoration projects and for landowners. As discussed elsewhere, interviews indicated
that one reason more landowners may be hesitant to undertake restoration projects is poor
performance and upkeep on older projects. It is not clear what sort of funding was involved;
however, lack of performance goals and active, adaptive management appears to have left some
landowners discouraged with restoration efforts.
An adaptive management approach, which relies on flexible, iterative management decision
making to compensate for ecosystem surprises and changes, is crucial for restoration as
ecosystem dynamics and responses to manipulation are still not well understood. In addition, any
number of unpredictable events and conditions such as floods, droughts or toxic spills can affect
project activities. The acknowledged uncertainty essential for adaptive management can,
however, be threatening to landowners. There may be concerns regarding potential liabilities and
increased costs if project actions do not produce results. To overcome such legitimate concerns,
agencies and other project partners need to provide written, contractual assurances that
landowners will not be responsible for project setbacks or failures beyond their control.
III.
Themes and Issues in the Harkens Lake Process: The Hornings’
Story
The following section covers the history and process regarding the Harkens Lake project. It
includes relevant project partners’ observations; however, it is primarily the landowners’ story.
To the extent possible, section topics and heading are similar to those in Section II covering
24
general themes concerned with restoration planning which emerged from interviews with a range
of project partners and advisors.
The Hornings’ story provides important policy and practice information about working with
landowners to restore Willamette River habitat and functions. As discussed in earlier sections,
many landowners along the Willamette tend to be mistrustful of working with government, a
condition that acts as a barrier to greater landowner participation. If greater restoration success is
to be realized, project partners need to keep in mind the lessons their story provides.
A. Landowners’ Expectations
The Hornings have lived on their property for five generations. As a result, they have a long
relationship and a great depth of understanding regarding the river, and they have witnessed
significant changes in river behavior. The river has followed numerous paths across their land
through those generations regardless of human attempts to better control it, even with revetments
and dams in place. For instance, the Hornings noted ways in which, along with agricultural
practices, dams have had significant impacts on river actions:
Dams have changed the way the river moves. You can look at LIDAR maps and
see it. The river has been changing forever, but now the dams have changed the
way it changes.
Revetments also changed river dynamics. According to the Hornings, before the dams went in,
floods were bigger but of shorter duration and therefore did not do as much damage to farms
along the river’s banks. Floods used to clear out sloughs and backwaters; now many of those
areas are filled up and stagnant except during larger floods and high water events. During the
period since dams were built, some farmers began planting in lower ground than they had in the
past, which created additional risks: because of contamination from pathogens such as E.coli, if
river water touches any edible crops, processors will not take them.
There have been other landscape changes as well. Area landowners recall water skiing in an area
that now has 50-foot-high trees. The Hornings talked about other ways in which they have
experienced the landscape changes:
Growing up on the river, we had a lot of recreation like hunting, fishing and
tubing. The sloughs were good habitat, but now they’re all dead, dammed off at
one end to the other. They’re just big, stagnant ponds.
In 2010, they approached the Greenbelt Land Trust to talk about restoration, and became aware
of the potential for an easement that would allow them to keep title to the land and continue to
use property for agricultural production for up to ten years. Income from continued agricultural
use of the property under easement will go into an established stewardship fund for the property.
Their hopes for a restoration project are simple. One of them said:
25
I’d like to see the channel alive again. It’s one thing when you grow up around it and you
slowly see it die. We’ve filled in channels and sloughs that were mostly stagnant ponds;
but that was a living area, and it would be nice to see it come back. We’ve taken a lot
from the river, and this is a way we can give back to it.
The Hornings would like the project to be an example of how restoration can be accomplished
efficiently and effectively. Their hope is that this project can be an example for other people
along the river and that it will open up opportunities for other restoration projects.
B. Working with the Landowners: Incentives and Disincentives
The Hornings expressed enthusiasm for project possibilities on numerous occasions. At the same
time, however, they and several interviewees familiar with local sentiments and knowledge
expressed a number of concerns and limitations that could affect successful project planning and
implementation.
The risks and benefits of restoration comprise tradeoffs that are, in the words of one agency
person interviewed, “a big, broad bucket of both risks and rewards over space and time and from
local and personal to system-wide and societal.” The implied, interlinked issues to consider are
who ultimately bears the risks and who enjoys the benefits. An example is the tradeoff between
individuals’ agricultural production and economic viability and the societal environmental
interest in endangered species. The agency representative suggested that,
In an ideal world, striking an equitable balance would involve the long-term commitment
by key institutions to minimize financial harm to property owners for making a
contribution to societal gains such as healthy ecosystem functions.
Projects do not take place in isolation. One important concern for landowners is the effect of a
proposed restoration project on relationships with neighbors, and Harkens Lake is no exception.
Changes in river management structures are generally regarded with a good deal of skepticism
and unease. Different interviewees spoke about landowners’ apprehensions regarding flooding
and the high awareness that the river is unpredictable and cannot, ultimately, be controlled.
Nonetheless, restoration—especially the current view that projects should be designed to “let the
river do the work”—introduces additional uncertainty. That increases fears that land and
productivity will be lost to river behavior. Despite repeated and increasing messages regarding
the need to provide fish habitat along with more natural conditions both in and alongside the
river, landowners’ justified concerns tend to override ecosystem considerations. An agency
representative summed up the situation:
Landowners understand that rivers have huge power and can change the land very
quickly. The river has been here for centuries, and you’re essentially living and
farming in the river by virtue of being in the floodplain. Thus there’s a risk for
even owning this part of it – anything you do there, including stabilizing it, is a
26
risk for adjacent landowners. You create more power for the river to affect
upstream and downstream owners by changing hydraulics.
A high risk, and one that concerns the Hornings, is the possibility of a large-scale river change,
such as creating an unanticipated new channel which destroys existing property. Although no
absolute assurance is possible regarding river behavior, one of the Hornings pointed out,
That risk is true no matter who has the liability, us or the state. If there’s not some
kind of apparatus in place to ensure [unanticipated property destruction] won’t
happen, the project won’t go forward. We have to have an understanding that in
an emergency it will be fixed immediately if it starts to happen. The Corps, the
state, need to protect your investments.
There are also changes in production practices to keep in mind. One project partner observed:
Restoration will change the way the land is used. It will be opening up the river,
and people are not going to be able to use their land for production in the same
way they used to. There may be different crops and different growing conditions.
Aside from identifying neighborhood-wide issues when approaching restoration, there are other
good reasons to ensure substantial landowner input early in the process. The Hornings talked
about the lack of interaction between landowners and those interested in restoration, a problem
since “Greenway” times.
People have been out to the area to survey fish, wildlife and other resources without ever
surveying the landowners to find out what we know about our lands and where our
interests lie with respect to restoration. We seem to be the overlooked resource in
restoration planning.
When reflecting specifically on this latest process, the Hornings talked about an early community
meeting regarding restoration possibilities for the area as both a high point and a low point. It
was a high point in that they were at a table with two other farmers. But the fact that there were
so few landowners in the room made it a low point as well. As one of them commented:
It seems like the farming community should have a fairly significant presence (at
these types of meetings). There’s a lot of interest in it. Most farmers have a piece
of ground they’d like to do something with, but they need to be properly
recognized to get the process started.
The comment indicates that, in addition to being able to provide information on potential
projects, meetings with more landowner representation also provide an opportunity for
restoration partners to hear a variety of landowner needs, experiences and concerns that can be
incorporated into future action plans. In doing so, project partners may be able to reduce
disincentives while increasing incentives.
27
As mentioned elsewhere in the report, easements can affect bank loan potential. The area of the
Horning’s operation covered by restoration plans comprises poor soils and is not good farmland.
Additionally, it is an area which is frequently inundated though it does not contain wetland soils.
The Hornings will retain ownership of a large block of acreage and are open to all restoration
options, including not farming the area. However, early in the process they made it known that
they wanted to ensure that the block of acreage being considered either be put in restoration as a
whole or that it be divided into farmable, economically viable units in order to maintain
reasonable land use options. They’re not interested in selling their property because of their
strong attachment to the land, and they see this project as a way to help them stay in place.
The Hornings want to be a part of restoration activities and are willing to help with all aspects of
restoration. They know how to do the work, but it needs to pencil out for them. As one of them
summed it up:
This requires the same commitment as we have now for the land. All we’re going
to be doing is farming different crops – native plants and shrubs and trees – so
you should put the exact same amount of effort as you do your commodity crops.
According to the Hornings and some of the project partners, there have been many project sites
which were either poorly designed or poorly monitored, and this has likely had a negative
influence on the way landowners up and down the mainstem view restoration. Several people
observed that if Harkens Lake is a project that demonstrates good process, good design, good
economic outcomes for the Hornings and good stewardship among landowners and project
partners, it has significant potential to make restoration attractive to other landowners. One
project partner talked about multiple project benefits:
You have a group of landowners meeting and learning about restoration. We have
this opportunity of working together, and we haven’t always had that. It’s
interesting because generally people are starting to see things differently, see what
important values there are regarding the river. Before, they were always battling
it. Now, they’re beginning to realize that maybe it’s better to work with it than
against it. That’s what Harkens Lake is: working with the river in ways that have
benefits all around – for habitat and for species and for the landowners.
The Hornings expressed the importance of having management partners develop a common
management agreement to ensure the area will be maintained in an appropriate manner from
keeping weeds at bay to the question of public access. Although the upcoming project will not
provide public access through their property, there are issues regarding public access within the
larger designated conservation zone. Neighboring landowners have had lingering concerns
regarding further land based and river activity development of Anderson Park, based on past
vandalism on nearby park properties. This has included unlawful firearms use, littering, alcohol
related vandalism, and unlawful after-hours use of park property. While there are currently no
28
signs indicating Anderson Park, it can be approached along roadways as well as by the river.
Road access has been intermittently cut off through gate closures; however, it was unclear who
has authority to determine when and if gates should be open or closed. Benton County is
working with law enforcement and other entities and meeting with landowners regarding park
expansion management plans and public access as of the date of this report.
The Harkens Lake project clearly reveals a range of benefits and risks. One project partner
expressed the hope, however, that Harkens Lake restoration, and the Willamette in a bigger
sense, will represent a positive shift for landowners – away from struggling and battling with the
river to turning it into an asset and a benefit. A researcher expressed the additional hope that
ultimately,
…landowners will feel good about the use of their land for restoration purposes
and the legacy they will be leaving in terms of their contributions to land use, land
cover and the health of the river.
C.
Permitting Issues
At this stage, it is not clear which agencies will ultimately be involved in permitting for the
Harkens Lake area restoration project. Those who were interviewed for this report had highly
variable perspectives on the permit process. For some, the process appears to be time consuming
but fairly readily navigated. For others, the process has been highly frustrating and discouraging
for landowners and project partners alike. Emphasizing the potential deal-breaking nature of the
process in the eyes of landowners, one of the project partners observed:
It’s a huge time sink for landowners with no certainty that they’ll get what they
want out on the far end. They’re reluctant to head into that tunnel when they
can’t see what’s at the far end.
An earlier section of the report discusses the issue of multi-permit approval as a fundamental
component of restoration project permitting. Although collaboration is not a new concept, a
project partner described the problem of joint agency permitting and its effect on project timing
in the following terms:
Agencies get in the way of themselves. They have a lot of goals in common such
as restoring endangered species, but they all have different processes for going
about it. We have this problem – we can give landowners a clear picture of the
project design and the budget for it and a clear picture of the construction and the
budget for that; but we can’t give them a clear picture of the time involved for
getting the permits. Permitting is the thing in the middle. It could take three
months or it could take three years, and there’s no way of knowing.
29
Permit timing complexity and unpredictability can certainly be a barrier to getting landowners
involved in restoration projects. Those involved in shepherding projects should be clear with
landowners about the time-consuming nature of permitting. In addition, there should be
coordinating meetings with involved agencies to determine potential sticking points and establish
agreed-to problem-solving protocols to minimize the potential for impasses and holds-ups. This
topic is further discussed in the following section, Interorganizational Collaboration.
D.
Conservation Easements: Legal and Financial Issues
As discussed elsewhere, the appraisal is the linchpin of the process. Several challenges can arise
around appraisals for a conservation easement. Low appraisal prices are not surprising in a
depressed real estate market. There is also the appraisal challenge of low turnover among
agricultural properties. Low appraisal prices are unlikely to provide sufficient economic
incentive for landowners’ entering into an agreement. The Greenbelt Land Trust, which would
hold the easement, is prohibited from paying above appraised value. A landowner could be
reluctant to sell property at depressed rates for both personal and community reasons. Property
sold at a lower value would also negatively affect neighboring property owners’ land values and,
subsequently, the ability to secure loans.
In the Harkens Lake process, due to timing, the decision was made during 2010 to commission a
”restricted” appraisal to determine if the range of values met the landowners expectations. A
likely combination of the market, which was at a long-time low when the restricted appraisal was
completed, along with a less formal appraisal that may not have reflected all necessary
considerations, led to an initial valuation the landowners rejected.
One issue that likely added to a low appraisal rate, and an issue that will likely affect other
restoration projects, is the fact that wetlands have an assigned value, but non-wetland acreage
providing flood storage currently has no value assigned to it. The Hornings believe this
condition needs to be corrected to make restoration more financially attractive to landowners. It
is also important that such acreage be assigned a dollar value since, as a project partner noted:
People draw wetland boundaries and that’s where people focus; yet some of the
most important habitat is in the ‘fringe’ between the wetland and the upland areas.
That’s where different species take refuge, where they nest. There are different
types of food there as well. It’s really important for lots of reasons.
During an early 2011 interview, the Hornings referred to the initial disappointing appraisal rate
as a “bump in the road.” They did, however, express frustration over the fact that many
appraisers aren’t as knowledgeable as they need to be to determine appropriate agricultural and
restoration land valuation. Many use the same appraisal methodology used to determine current
house values such as comparable prices within the last 12 months. This is not appropriate for
lands which seldom come on the market. Agricultural land is a special land use type which
requires special evaluation techniques. What may have influenced selection of the first appraiser
30
was a need to find someone to meet deadlines for project appraisal figures at a time when no
experienced agricultural appraisers were available. If that is the case, there is a distinct lesson: in
trying to get an appraisal sooner rather than later, selecting an appraiser without the requisite
experience may impede the process.
The Greenbelt initiated discussions with another appraiser who was more familiar with the land
values in the upper Willamette Basin. After consultations with the landowners , a full “yellowbook” appraisal was undertaken in 2011 and the values from this work proved acceptable to the
Hornings and the other property owner included in the easement acquisition process.
The second appraisal was done within the deadline set by one of the funders. The Hornings were
notified over the summer, however, that the deadline had been pushed back to a later time in the
fall, which came as a surprise. Although the landowners had to provide a written letter of intent
regarding their commitment, the funding agencies did not provide reciprocal written
commitments. The Hornings suggested that some sort of written commitment to time-sensitive
activities on both sides would provide more assurance to landowners and be more equitable.
Pushing the deadline back so that it was close to the end of the calendar year had two effects.
The Hornings became concerned regarding their ability to do adequate planning both for tax
purposes and for the next year’s planting within such a small window. And, for the first time,
there was a degree of uncertainty regarding the process.
They had already invested substantial money in attorney fees, in part because the complicated
due diligence requirements of OWEB necessitated close reviews by their attorney and, in part
because the project had two funding sources, BPA and OWEB. Each agency had a specific
process for due diligence which likely made the effort more complicated than if there had been a
single funding source. The process was also more complex because there needed to be three
separate easements, appraisals, and other due diligence work (surveys, land audits, public
reviews etc.) for each of the property owners. During the process there were legal reviews of all
documents by attorneys for BPA, OWEB, Greenbelt Land Trust and the landowners so the
transactions were very intensive given all the legal scrutiny. Some new ground was clearly
broken during this process, because this land transaction was the first time that BPA and OWEB
had agreed to have third party rights on the same easements so the funding partners were
working out a template for how they could act in concert on the easement and accept each
other’s requirements. The high legal costs for the Hornings caused them to reflect on the costprohibitive nature of legal fees and time investment for landowners with smaller acreages. Those
with smaller properties cannot aggregate acreages to reach any economy of scale; each property
must be handled individually. They also pointed out that their attorney expressed doubts about
the process, based on a somewhat similar experience in Lane County in which the landowners
were not given adequate time to make decisions regarding certain changes during negotiations.
31
They were philosophical about the situation during an interview in late summer 2011, expressing
an understanding that, since this was to be a pilot project and would be a template for subsequent
projects, funders appeared to be very cautious about the process to ensure its success. Although
the Hornings indicated they still believed in the process and that everything would work out,
based in a new sense of uncertainty and what they identified as a one-sided liberty to change
deadlines, they made it clear after the 2011 deadline was shifted to late in the fall that they would
“be done” with the process and withdraw their offer to put the property under easement if there
were any further delays. One of them expressed the particular frustration:
They asked for extensions when we couldn’t ask for them, according to (the agreement)
language. No wonder nobody wants to do this kind of deal. If this had been for a smaller
amount of land, it wouldn’t have been worth it. We put a lot of time and money into it.
The stakes were high for a successful conclusion on the easement. Based on the history of
mistrust of government among landowners up and down the Willamette, news that this process
became overly burdensome and that the agencies did not appear to act in good faith and with the
landowners’ needs foremost could undermine any future efforts to establish trust and reinforce
the perception that dealing with the government is not in landowners’ interests.
GLT staff, along with staff in the funding organizations, worked extremely hard to reconcile
various liability issues, some of which appeared to the landowners to be of minor consequence
but which nonetheless created bottlenecks. In late 2011, all transactions were successfully
completed. The Hornings gave high praise to GLT staff. Reflecting on the final phase of the
process, the Hornings commented:
It’s so important when you’re dealing with something with this kind of value. The tax
planning is critical. A lot of people deserve a lot of credit on firming up the deadline. It
wasn’t just us. But just because you’re an agency, you can’t eliminate all liabilities.
That’s how attorneys should look at it, but it’s not how you get things done.
In an interview after the process had been completed, the Hornings indicated they would not
want to go through a similar process again, and it was unclear to them whether it had created a
practicable template for future processes. Reflecting on their three-year experience, they had
several comments and words of advice to other landowners. Legal costs can be substantial. An
interested landowner needs to have capital available and needs to be committed to the idea in
order to withstand what may likely be a costly, drawn-out process. Such processes are time
consuming for a group—farmers—who don’t have much slack time, if any, during active
planting, growing and harvesting seasons, which constitute most of the year. Delays or changes
can add to the time required. Having an experienced attorney is essential. And, of equal
importance, the landowner needs to be partnered with an organization such as the GLT, with
staff that have a lot of experience and will be a dedicated, trusted landowner advocate. One of
the Hornings commented:
32
The absolute most important thing is, you’d better find an organization like the Greenbelt
Land Trust. If we didn’t buy into the Greenbelt Land Trust, we would have walked away
a long time ago. If you’re still a little leery of your middleman, it would be a disaster.
Despite the frustrations, difficulties, and near-breakdown of the negotiations for the easement,
the Hornings talked about one of the high points of the process being the people they met with
face to face and got to know. They indicated that they are also looking forward to the
interactions that will be a part of the actual restoration.
Although they indicated they would not want to repeat the process, the Hornings are enthusiastic
about restoration plans going forward:
This is just a first step. It’s a good start…When we can look back in ten to fifteen
years at a project that has a good foothold, then we can pat ourselves on the
back…We haven’t accomplished that much on the ground in the grand scope of
things yet. The sense of accomplishment will come when we have a forest. The
first year we tentatively have a ten-acre block planned. We’re excited to get it
going.
E.
Interorganizational Collaboration
Organizations such as land trusts play very important roles to help coordinate project needs
related to land protections through fee simple acquisitions and easements and the planning and
implementation of restoration work on these lands.. This is the recurring theme of “case worker”
or broker. According to one of the Hornings:
Without a group like the Greenbelt Land Trust and someone like Michael [Pope,
executive director], it’s too much for farmers. We’ve been told by others who’ve
had projects that we should be prepared to start over two or three times. You’d get
so frustrated you’d give up. It is such a complicated process.
As noted elsewhere, restoration projects typically involve manipulating existing landscape and
require the cooperation and coordination among multiple regulatory and administrative agencies
at different levels of government for approval of the necessary Clean Water Act, Endangered
Species Act and other state and local permits. Consistent with characteristic restoration projects,
Harkens Lake project will involve agencies at the local, state and possibly federal levels.
Underscoring potential project complexity, a researcher noted:
Floodplain reconnection projects, which require moving earth around, become
complicated immediately. Not only are there state or federal agencies involved;
33
there are typically multiples of both. This is a long-term challenge, and we have
to keep chipping away on it.
As the Harkens Lake process demonstrates, a project can also be complex due to the
involvement of multiple properties and joint funding. The due diligence and timing for a
single property can be challenging. The chance to involve multiple properties for a larger
and more comprehensive restoration footprint represented a special opportunity;
however, each property required its own easement appraisal and associated survey, title
review and due diligence process.
Agency partners had budget, timing and resource issues to contend with that did not align
with landowner planning and tax needs. Funding availability was an issue as the state and
federal fiscal years are different: June 30th as the fiscal year end for Oregon state agencies
and September 30th for the federal partners. Furthermore, agencies had to deal with time
constraints due to diminished staff to carry out project requirements. Without similar
experiences to guide them, the agencies had to develop new collaborative strategies and
skills because each agency is constrained by their own internal procedures and policies.
Resulting bottlenecks and delays provided a highly important lesson. All involved entities
should understand landowner timing needs and plan accordingly at the front end of
similar processes. As discussed elsewhere, due to scheduling issues, the Hornings were
placed in a position where due diligence and negotiations regarding the accepted
appraisal, based on agency scheduling, might not have provided enough time to take care
of the necessary tax planning as well as production planning for the next crop year. The
situation nearly became a deal breaker. Some intense negotiation was needed; and,
fortunately, all parties were able to come to agreement so that the appraisal and
acquisition processes were successfully completed.
The challenges of collaborating with multiple project partners are many, but the Hornings
recognized consistent and trusting collaboration is critical to success:
Wrangling up all the groups will take time and patience. Every meeting we’ve
had, we got something out of or were able to explain our viewpoint. All of the
meetings have been important, and we get to meet people and hear their different
concerns. It seems like we’re all interested in the same thing. There are several
steps to this project: appraisals, easements, design and implementation, permits,
care of the project, and funding for the long term. If you don’t have those last two
things in place, we know what you get—bad projects—and nobody’s happy.
An important upside to the difficulties encountered in the Harkens Lake experience is
that there is now a template available for future, similar joint processes, although
participants are not certain any given template would work universally, as every case is
unique. Equally important, the landowners were able to have their needs met and, as a
34
result, there is a story with a positive outcome regarding landowner/government relations
that may encourage other landowners to become involved in partnering with government
after decades of mistrust.
F.
Integrating Science
With respect to the Harkens Lake vicinity, bringing scientists to the table provided the necessary
credibility to the effort, verifying that the project is important and that this is a valuable
opportunity. For the Horning families, the science and technology in the Willamette River Basin
Planning Atlas provided the inspiration for them to approach possible partners to help them
pursue their vision for the property. Their interest was reinforced because of the opportunity to
work with, in their words, “people who obviously have such a passion for their work and for the
river.”
It was after the Hornings originally approached the GLT regarding their property that they
became aware of the Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas and, specifically, the Atlas example
of what could be accomplished in the Harkens Lake area. As one of the Hornings indicated:
The most exciting point was seeing the planning atlas and learning about what we could
do with the property. At that point we were looking at a smaller piece of property. That
was the first time we looked at each other and said maybe we could do this whole island.
We’re farmers. We don’t know a lot about fish and such things. We went out one day
when they were shocking fish and saw the relationships between native and non-native
species, water temperature, dynamic parts of the river and how much of the river can
really be helped or saved because of the water temperature and (other restoration
activities).
They also understood the benefits of restoration to their farming operations:
We had the potential to bring life back to our whole channel, which had been dying for
decades, and realized we could make a few changes that would bring it back to life that
would not only help the entire river system but…would benefit our fields down the river
based on the science.
It’s unclear if all farmers would have the same level of enthusiasm and interest as the Hornings
regarding how restoration can provide multiple benefits to both natural and agricultural systems.
The Hornings’ comments, however, indicate that integrating science into planning in ways that
provides a picture to landowners of how restoration can be personally as well as environmentally
beneficial, can make potential projects that much more attractive.
35
G.
Project Design
In addition to credible science, the choice of modeling is an important element of design. River
Design Group recommended the stage-discharge correlation approach rather than hydraulic
modeling as,
…it can provide similar information at a planning-scale for a fraction of the cost of
hydraulic modeling if landowners are able to collect the water stage data. The
information gathered is also useful for calibration if hydraulic modeling is required at a
later date. These data will be used to better estimate river hydraulics and determine areas
suitable for potential reconnection/floodplain restoration. The staff plates will remain
after the project and may be used for future monitoring.
Bathymetric data, which would be integrated into an existing LiDAR dataset, may be collected in
backwatered/ponded areas. This would be done in order to better estimate potential channel
capacities and material quantities for future construction and cost estimating. The design
consultants have already produced preliminary restoration planning maps with potential
alternatives. The maps and alternatives will be further developed and refined as data gathering is
completed and as the alternatives are reviewed by the Greenbelt Land Trust and stakeholders to
help identify the primary restoration strategy.
As discussed elsewhere, the Harkens Lake project is noteworthy as it involves an identified
priority restoration area. At the same time, however, one of the project partners talked about the
significance of restoration projects in larger terms:
In the bigger picture, it would be good to see restoration for the Willamette River
be a more holistic effort. Right now it’s just project by project with willing
landowners. It would be good to have a more calculated restoration program for
filling in the bigger picture than the current opportunistic, project-by-project
approach.
Correct design is not straightforward. An earlier section contained discussion regarding
landowners needing help to determine what they want from restoration projects. On another
level, those with expertise face similar challenges, according to researchers and project partners.
One of them spoke of the issue in the following terms:
One of the biggest hurdles is developing a good understanding of what good
restoration looks like at each site. There are 20-30 people giving their ideas about
how to accomplish restoration. We need to make sure we know what we want.
Beyond determining the criteria for good restoration, design is also challenging for a variety of
reasons, according to one of the project partners:
36
It’s difficult to show what the outcome will be before the project is implemented.
We’re using a two-dimensional depiction, and that’s hard to understand. Most
people who aren’t used to looking at drawings don’t understand what it is.
In addition to initial design, good plans for monitoring and management are also essential.
These have historically been overlooked as fundamental to restoration, and they still present
challenges. According to one project partner,
Funding agencies typically demand that an approved management plan be in
place within 18 months of acquisition. While it is an appropriate requirement, it
adds some additional burdens to the landowners and easement holders. There
needs to be some associated funding perhaps linked to the acquisition costs to
offset what amounts to an unfunded mandate.
It will take accommodation on the part of all partners throughout the project design and
implementation in the event of surprises and unforeseen developments. Understanding and
acceptance are crucial on the part of the landowners regarding the adaptive requirements for
project design and implementation. It’s also important for project partners to accept and
accommodate landowners’ needs for changes. A project partner explained:
The river is dynamic, not static; you don’t put in the project and then walk away.
Nature doesn’t work on our schedule. There will be changes in the channel,
sediment accumulation, and flood deposits. That happens now, but not as much
[as it will under restoration conditions]. The types and rate of change are on a
continuum; we’re always going to be managing the river and its environs –
forever. Adaptive management will be a big part of the project. We’re certainly
willing to make changes. For successful restoration, the landowner has to be 100
percent on board. The landowner has to ‘own’ the project. If we need to change
the project midstream to make it work, that’s not a problem. It’s far better to make
the necessary changes and have a happy landowner.
The foregoing also underscores the need, expressed by the Hornings, for an acceptable postproject management plan to accompany project design and implementation activities. All
restoration partners spoke in appreciative terms about the Hornings’ willingness, patience and
enthusiasm regarding the project, indicating that they are indeed, on board with the effort. This
sort of accommodation for restoration is still rather rare in the region, however, as one project
partner noted,
We’re starting to see landowners take a different view. They see their property as
aquatic and wildlife and habitat resources, not just farming resources.
This is a distinct paradigm shift. Successful projects increase the chances that additional
landowners may adopt this perspective. It means the stakes are high for the Harkens Lake
37
project. Based on the combination of willingness, expertise and trust, there is good reason to
believe the outcome will meet partners’ hopes and expectations.
IV.
Recommendations
Although there was not an extensive institutional assessment on the Harken’s Lake Project, there
were aspects of the process that provide important lessons. Looking beyond Harkens Lake to the
“bigger picture” of Willamette River restoration, we recommend several actions to better
coordinate restoration over particular segments of the Willamette in order to potentially increase
collaborative capacity, as follows:
•
Based on the Horning families’ experiences, project partners need to establish a “critical
path” for landowners’ participation, taking into account production needs, tax timing and
expense thresholds. When this has been agreed to, project partners need to develop and
commit in writing to mutual assurances.
•
In order to achieve the collaboration, all project partners need to establish their own
critical path plans in order to pinpoint and reconcile potential scheduling, funding,
administrative and other problems that could affect project success.
•
After designating a strategic reach of the river for restoration purposes, project partners
need to identify the “restoration network” needed to cover data sharing, permitting,
communications, outreach and all other pertinent coordination issues.
•
Partners need to designate a network or area communications manager, either within one
of the partner organizations or as a separate position, to act as the information clearing
house and be responsible for ensuring that all organizations and landowners in the
“restoration district” have up-to-date information. The same person can serve as an
ombudsman to reduce proliferation of unfounded rumors that can have a corrosive effect
on restoration efforts.
•
Regardless of scale, all projects need to be designed and conducted based on a whole
river system, or least a whole river reach and the system around it. In the past, projects
were predominantly designed on a property-by-property basis. Working opportunistically
does generate restoration activities; however, developing a landscape-level plan can help
identify how to best coordinate efforts for optimum landowner recruitment and
investments.
•
Adaptive management will be critical to project success. It is also a crucial component of
landowners’ relationships. Adaptive management tenets need to be broadly understood
by all parties: monitoring is crucial to ensure restoration performance outcomes as a part
of adaptive management. Its design is as important as all other aspects of a restoration
38
project not only to ensure acceptable outcomes but to ensure against waste of financial
resources.
•
Restoration funders and partners have every right to expect that investment dollars
will yield real and lasting dividends in terms of healthy, functioning ecosystems.
Requiring too much in terms landowner investment and liability, however, may well
reduce the number of projects.
o One example is potentially extreme financial sanctions for projects that fail to
meet project specifics. It would be helpful for project partners to reach
agreement on appropriate landowner/easement holder liability for nonperformance and to develop long-range planning that incorporates
consultation and assistance for landowners and easement holders to help
them avoid financial penalties. This would constitute a form of assurance to
landowners that they will not be taking on excessive risk by entering into a
restoration partnership.
o Another example is the requirement for management plans without plan
development funding. Project partners would be well advised to see if there
might be some way to cost-share for management plan development.
Landowners and easement holders already have substantial transaction
costs to absorb, and any reduction in those costs will help make restoration
an appealing and realistic proposition.
•
Projects inevitably involve uncertainty, but the perceived uncertainty is likely to be
higher when adaptive management is used. It may therefore help reduce landowners’
sense of uncertainly by providing assurance agreements.
•
Landowner knowledge is vital at every step. No agency should be allowed to proceed
with restoration planning—including studies, funding, permitting and any other
associated activities--without it. Also, it should be an essential step for anyone working
on restoration to understand or ‘be indoctrinated’ about meeting and talking to
landowners – if for no other reason than to show respect and recognition that there’s
something on a site other than habitat to be analyzed. These are socio-ecological systems,
not just science or agency-driven restoration projects.
•
It is possible to continue farming while conducting restoration. This does not appear to be
widely understood and is a major knowledge barrier for landowners. Case studies and
empirical data will help demonstrate to landowners and others that combining restoration
with agricultural production can be successful. Additional landowner interviews from
effective projects must be included, to show the early, middle, and late stages of
restoration work.
39
•
Management of risk is variably understood and should be investigated in depth, to
determine whether any policy changes might make restoration on the mainstem more
attractive through insurance or other means.
•
The most effective outreach is likely to be neighbor-to-neighbor or peer-to-peer,
particularly in areas where there is long-standing mistrust of government and/or
outsiders. The Hornings’ experience confirms this.
1
http://www.crcwater.org/issues5/19980727americanrivers14.html
http://www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/pdf/RevisedRegistryJune2009.pdf
3
Robbins, William G. 2005. Oregon: This Storied Land. Portland, OR: Oregon Historical Society Press. P. 152
4
Hulse, David, Stan Gregory and Joan Baker for the Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium. 2002.
Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and Ecological Change. 2nd Edition.
Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press.
5
Hulse, David, Stan Gregory and Joan Baker for the Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium. 2002.
Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of Environmental and Ecological Change. 2nd Edition.
Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University Press.
6
Robbins, William G. 2005. Oregon: This Storied Land. Portland, OR: Oregon Historical Society Press.
7
Cox, Thomas R. 1988. The Park Builders: A History of State Parks in the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press. Little, Charles E. 1990. Greenways for America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
8
In Cox, Thomas R. 1988. The Park Builders: A History of State Parks in the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, WA:
University of Washington Press, the author reports that condemnation was never actually invoked; however, in
Willamette River Greenway Parklands Strategy Task Force. 2005. Willamette Greenway Parklands Strategy: A
Report from the Task Force. Salem, OR: Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, the authors report that an
instance of condemnation occurred.
9
Willamette River Greenway Parklands Strategy Task Force. 2005. Willamette Greenway Parklands Strategy: A
Report from the Task Force. Salem, OR: Oregon Parks and Recreation Department.
10
Allen, Jennifer, Autumn Salamack, and Peter Schoonmaker. 1999. Restoring the Willamette Basin: Issues and
Challenges. Institute for the Northwest. Resolve Inc. 2001. Assessing Issues and Challenges Related to
Implementation of the Willamette Restoration Initiative Restoration Strategy. Portland, OR: Resolve, Inc.
11
see http://www.healthykidshealthycommunities.org/communities/benton-county-or
2
40
Appendix A
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning Summary
DATE: December 2, 2011
TO: Michael Pope, Greenbelt Land Trust
FROM: Peter Gruendike, River Design Group, Inc.
SUBJECT: Summary of work to date for Harkens Lake.
1 INTRODUCTION
River Design Group, Inc. (RDG) was retained by the Greenbelt Land Trust (GLT) to initiate
restoration planning on the Willamette River in the vicinity of Anderson County Park near
Monroe, Oregon (Figure 1-1). The project area includes nearly 600 acres of Willamette River
floodplain bounded by a remnant side channel of the Willamette River. The area is comprised
of several different ownerships, with much of the area owned by the Horning family, a fivegeneration farming family.
Figure 1-1. The project area vicinity map.
Whitefish Office
5098 HWY 93 South
Whitefish, Montana 59937
Corvallis Office
311 SW Jefferson Ave.
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
www.riverdesigngroup.com
41
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning Summary
The project area has been identified as a priority area for conservation and restoration
investment, and provides habitat for many native species including Western pond turtles,
Pacific lamprey, cutthroat trout, and endangered spring Chinook salmon. A collaborative effort
among landowners, GLT, state of Oregon, and Natural Resources Conservation Service has
resulted in a management agreement with the goals of restoring proper floodplain function and
re-establishing native vegetation communities to benefit aquatic and terrestrial species. To
support restoration efforts, RDG is investigating hydrological processes in the project area.
2 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS
In December 2010, RDG installed five staff plates in the project area to investigate water
surface elevation correlations between off-channel floodplain habitats and the Willamette River
with the goal of determining how off-channel habitat inundation relates to Willamette River
stage during high water events. Floodplain habitats are known to provide refugia for juvenile
and adult salmonids that inhabit the Willamette River system. The staff plates were mounted
on steel poles anchored in concrete. Each staff plate was surveyed with a survey grade Trimble
Real Time Kinematic (RTK) Global Positioning System (GPS) to determine the real world
coordinates and elevations of the zero mark on each plate. Figure 2-1 shows the location of
staff plates that were installed in the project area.
Figure 2-1. Project maps showing location of five installed staff plate locations in the Harkens Lake
project area.
Greenbelt Land Trust
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning
42
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning Summary
Water surface stage (elevation) was recorded by the Horning family and RDG during moderate
to high flow events throughout the winter and spring of 2010-2011. Each site visit included
recording the water surface stage at each staff plate. Since installation, the staff plates have
served two purposes; first, to create a stage-discharge correlation between the Harkens Lake
project area and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gages operated at Harrisburg and Corvallis
on the Willamette River, and secondly, to serve as a calibration point for a broader floodplain
inundation investigation RDG completed for the Eugene to Albany reach of the Willamette
River.
Figure 2-2. A staff plate during installation on December 1, 2010 (left) and the same staff plate
during a high flow event on January 18, 2011 (right).
Establishing a stage-discharge relationship between the Harkens Lake staff plates and the USGS
gages allows stakeholders to evaluate current river-floodplain connectivity at various flow
events throughout the Willamette River hydrograph. Once a stage-discharge relationship has
been developed between the Harkens Lake staff plates and the Willamette River, calibrated
floodplain inundation maps can be created for various flows related to biological objectives.
The inundation maps provide a snapshot of inundation extent and depth over the Harkens Lake
project area under different flow scenarios and help identify areas for potential floodplain
reconnection or restoration. For example, the inundation mapping suggests that a 2-year flood
event on the Willamette River at the Harrisburg gage will inundate the intact floodplain forest
located on the State Park's property located adjacent to the Horning’s property. Inundated
floodplain forest provides excellent off-channel winter habitat for listed juvenile spring Chinook
salmon.
The Harkens Lake staff plate data were also used as a calibration point for the inundation
modeling work that RDG completed for the Eugene to Albany reach of the Willamette River.
The staff plates at Harkens Lake provided actual surveyed water surface elevations on the
Willamette River floodplain at a location distant from the USGS gages where error in predicted
water surface elevations versus actual water surface elevations should be greatest.
Greenbelt Land Trust
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning
43
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning Summary
Finally, inundation maps developed from staff plate data can provide insights regarding how
floodplain restoration may affect floodplain habitats. For example, analyses could evaluate how
restoration actions such as berm or levee removal, channel grading, or other actions would
influence floodplain inundation and habitat creation. These modeled depictions help facilitate
the development of restoration alternatives, provide insight to stakeholders and landowners,
and support restoration planning to assist in the recovery of Upper Willamette River spring
Chinook salmon and Upper Willamette River winter steelhead.
3 SITE OBSERVATIONS
Since installation, the Horning family and RDG have recorded water surface elevations in the
project area during a variety of moderate to high flow events. A summary of the collected data
is provided in Section 4 of this report.
On January 17, 2011, a 2-year flood event occurred at the Harrisburg gaging station and the
project area. Water surface elevations were recorded at the project staff plates and at the
Harrisburg gage (via the USGS gage website). The staff plate water surface elevations were also
compared to the 2-year flood curve that was derived during RDG’s Eugene to Albany floodplain
inundation modeling effort. The results indicated that the modeled water surface elevations
had a strong correlation with observed water surface elevations (272.40 ft observed vs. 272.56
ft modeled) from the project area (Figure 3-1). This analysis provided a greater degree of
confidence that the predicted 2-year flood inundation could be used to prepare restoration
alternatives within the Eugene to Albany reach, including the Harkens Lake project area and
adjacent properties. This information also provides the landowners additional assurance for
expected outcomes for restoration designs. Additional high water events were measured in
January, 2012.
Greenbelt Land Trust
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning
44
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning Summary
Figure 3-1. Comparison of observed water surface elevation data recorded from a staff plate in the
project area (left) and from modeled 2-year flood water surface data from the Willamette River
inundation mapping in the Eugene to Albany reach.
4 Staff Plate Data
Staff Plate #
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Greenbelt Land Trust
Name
Description
Elevation
Located at large pull out next to the
Willamette River approximately 1000'
River
271.578
NE of the main gate. Walk down trail
on top of bank to river's edge.
Located directly north of the boat
268.082
Slough landing area on the slough located on
State Park's property.
Located on the south side of the eastwest running road that follows the
Swale Horning's and Pitcher's property lines. 269.592
Plate is located adjacent to an
irrigation riser.
Located ~50 ft west of the north-south
running road that bisects the side
267.419
Duck Pond channel and project area. The plate is
due west of a collapsed culvert under
the road.
Crossing
Located just west of a low water
crossing on the side channel.
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning
266.574
45
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning Summary
Harken's Lake Water Stage Monitoring Data Form
Staff
Plate #
Date
Time
Stage (ft)
Surveyor
1
2
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
4
5
4
5
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
5
12/1/2010
12/1/2010
12/6/2010
12/6/2010
12/11/2010
12/11/2010
12/11/2010
12/11/2010
12/11/2010
12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/13/2010
12/14/2010
12/14/2010
12/14/2010
12/14/2010
12/14/2010
12/15/2010
12/15/2010
12/15/2010
12/15/2010
12/15/2010
12/20/2010
12/20/2010
12/20/2010
12/20/2010
12/20/2010
12/29/2010
12/29/2010
12/29/2010
12/29/2010
12/30/2010
12/30/2010
1/5/2011
1/5/2011
1/17/2011
1/17/2011
1/17/2011
1/17/2011
1/17/2011
1/18/2011
1/18/2011
16:14
16:22
15:00
15:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:00
10:14
10:27
10:35
11:00
13:30
13:30
13:30
13:30
13:30
14:20
14:20
14:20
14:20
9:00
9:00
9:00
9:00
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
14:30
11:05
12:25
0.42
0.76
0.38
0.86
-0.50
0.10
0.00
0.22
0.62
0.64
0.95
0.00
0.30
0.97
2.11
2.30
0.00
0.85
1.85
2.77
2.80
~ -0.4 est
2.00
2.83
3.19
3.35
0.25
2.48
3.32
3.70
3.70
1.00
2.18
3.20
3.90
0.40
0.60
5.95
5.90
2.78
no access
5.60
4.45
4.70
Pete Gruendike
Pete Gruendike
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Gary Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Pete Gruendike
Pete Gruendike
Pete Gruendike
Pete Gruendike
Pete Gruendike
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Pete Gruendike
Pete Gruendike
Staff
Plate #
Date
Time
Stage (ft)
Surveyor
1
5
1/20/2012
1/20/2012
9:00
9:00
7.00
6.50
Steve Horning
Steve Horning
Greenbelt Land Trust
Comments
River rising quickly
River rising quickly
estimated 6 inches below zero mark
Good access, staff clear of debris
walk in only, Binoculars would help
dry at plate, water on both sides of road. Likely inundated at storm peak
Only accessible from South, Road flooded
Had to boat to it
couldn’t access
Comments
Harkens Lake Restoration Planning
Stage at
Harrisburg
8.87
8.92
7.59
7.59
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
8.77
8.77
8.77
8.77
8.77
9.88
9.88
9.88
9.88
9.88
10.11
10.12
10.08
10.09
10.06
10.58
10.58
10.58
10.58
10.58
11.57
11.57
11.57
11.57
10.59
10.59
6.13
6.13
13.26
13.26
13.26
13.26
13.26
11.01
10.86
Stage at
Harrisburg
13.2
13.2
46